5510 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

Related Information 

(k) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness 

Directive 2010–0066, dated April 21, 2010; 

and the service information identified in 

Table 1 of this AD; for related information. 

TABLE 1—SERVICE INFORMATION

Service information Revision Date 

Airbus All Operators Telex A300–71A6029 ........................................................... Original .................................................. March 30, 2010. 

Airbus All Operators Telex A310–71A2036 ........................................................... Original .................................................. March 30, 2010. 

GE CF6–80C2 Service Bulletin 72–0222 .............................................................. 4 ............................................................ February 29, 2000. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

25, 2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2173 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 139 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0247; Notice No. 11– 

01] 

RIN 2120–AJ70 

Safety Enhancements Part 139, 

Certification of Airports 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend 

the airport certification standards in 

part 139. This action would establish 

minimum standards for training of 

personnel who access the airport nonmovement area (ramp and apron) to 

help prevent accidents and incidents in 

that area. A certificate holder would be 

required to conduct pavement surface 

evaluations to ensure reliability of 

runway surfaces in wet weather 

conditions. This action would also 

require a Surface Movement Guidance 

Control System (SMGCS) plan if the 

certificate holder conducts low visibility 

operations. The plan would facilitate 

the safe movement of aircraft and 

vehicles in low visibility conditions. 

Finally, this action would clarify the 

applicability of part 139 and explicitly 

prohibit fraudulent or intentionally false 

statements in a certificate application or 

record required to be maintained. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before April 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0247 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Take comments to 

Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of 

the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

received, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments received into any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule, contact Kenneth Langert, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Office 

of Airports Safety and Standards, 

Airport Safety and Operations Division 

(AAS–300), 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 

(202) 493–4529; fax (202) 493–1416; 

e-mail: kenneth.langert@faa.gov. For 

legal questions concerning this rule, 

contact Robert Hawks, Office of the 

Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–7143; fax (202) 267–7971; e-mail: 

rob.hawks@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

Included in this discussion is related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

this proposal and related rulemaking 

documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44706, 

‘‘Airport operating certificates.’’ Under 

that section, Congress charges the FAA 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations for practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce, 

including issuing airport operating 

certificates that contain terms the 

Administrator finds necessary to ensure 

safety in air transportation. This 

proposed rule is within the scope of that 

authority because it would enhance 

safety in airport operations by requiring 

training of personnel accessing the nonmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5511 

1AC issued June 21, 2002, with a change issued 

March 31, 2008. 

2See GAO Report 08–29 (November 2007). 

3See GAO Report 08–29 (November 2007). 

4See Flight Safety Foundation ‘‘Defusing the 

Ramp’’ (May 2007). 

5See NTSB Report SEA06LA033 (December 

2005). 

6See Advisory Circular 150/5320–12, 

Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of 

Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces §§ 1–3. 

2–15 (March 18, 1997). 

movement area, periodic friction testing, 

and plans for low visibility operations. 

Background 

The FAA issues airport operating 

certificates (AOCs) under part 139 to 

certain airports serving commercial 

passenger-carrying operations based on 

the type of commercial operations and 

size of aircraft served. Currently, 556 of 

the four classes of airports (I, II, III, IV) 

defined in part 139 hold FAA-issued 

airport operating certificates. Part 139 

prescribes the minimum standards for 

maintaining and operating the physical 

airport environment. 

Non-Movement Area Safety Training 

Currently, part 139 requires periodic 

training for all personnel who access 

movement (runways and taxiways) and 

safety areas. Airlines and airports 

provide primary safety oversight in nonmovement areas (ramps and aprons). 

Some airports voluntarily implement 

training for personnel accessing the 

non-movement area. FAA Advisory 

Circular (AC) 150/5210–20, Ground 

Vehicle Operations on Airports 1

provides guidance to airport operators 

developing training programs for safe 

ground vehicle operations and 

pedestrian control. This guidance 

applies to all personnel accessing the 

movement and non-movement areas. 

Airport ramps typically are confined, 

congested areas in which departing and 

arriving aircraft are serviced by ramp 

workers, including baggage, catering, 

and fueling personnel. Additional 

personnel on ramps include airport 

police, FAA officials, and other airport, 

airline, and vendor staff. The presence 

of large numbers of people using 

equipment in a relatively small area, 

often under significant time pressure, 

creates an environment for injuries and 

aircraft damage. Errors occur because of 

carelessness, distractions, confusion, 

inadequate training, lack of supervision, 

and time pressure. 

The Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) issued a report in 2007 

stating a lack of complete accident data 

and standards for ground handling 

hindered efforts to improve airport ramp 

safety.2 The GAO found that the FAA, 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB), and Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) 

investigated 29 fatal ramp accidents 

from 2001 through 2006.3 Most fatal 

accidents involve ramp workers, but 

pilots and passengers have died in ramp 

accidents. The GAO report concluded 

that there are no Federal or industrywide standards for ramp operations. 

According to a 2007 Flight Safety 

Foundation article, turnover among 

personnel typically is high, training can 

be spotty, and standard operating 

procedures may be nonexistent or 

ignored.4 The Flight Safety Foundation 

article also found that ramp accidents 

occur frequently and cause airlines to 

incur significant costs often not covered 

by insurance. 

Furthermore, activities in the nonmovement area affect the safety of 

crewmembers and passengers after the 

aircraft leaves the ramp area. 

Undetected aircraft damage from ramp 

activities can cause in-flight 

emergencies. In December 2005, an 

Alaska Airlines MD–80 departing from 

Seattle, WA, to Burbank, CA, 

experienced a sudden cabin 

depressurization. The aircraft returned 

to Seattle and landed without injuries. 

The investigation revealed that a ramp 

vehicle had punctured the aircraft 

fuselage, but no one had reported the 

incident.5

Runway Pavement Surface Evaluation 

Braking performance is critical for all 

aircraft especially on wet runway 

surfaces. Under certain conditions, 

hydroplaning or unacceptable loss of 

traction (tire/pavement contact) results 

in poor braking performance and 

possible loss of directional control. 

Standing water, runway contaminants 

(e.g., fuel and rubber), and smoothing or 

‘‘polishing’’ of surface aggregates reduce 

friction. 

Research shows that a higher level of 

friction is achieved by forming or 

cutting closely spaced transverse 

grooves on the runway surface, which 

allows rain water to escape from 

beneath tires of landing aircraft.6

Pavement grooving was the first major 

step in achieving safer pavement 

surfaces for aircraft operations in wet 

weather conditions. Studies conducted 

in the U.S. and United Kingdom 

determined that an open graded, thin 

hot-mix asphalt (HMA) surface course 

called ‘‘porous friction course’’ (PFC) 

also could achieve good results. This 

surface permits rain water to permeate 

through the course and drain off 

transversely to the side of the runway, 

preventing water buildup on the surface 

and creating a relatively dry pavement 

condition during rainfall. An FAA 

Technical Center study demonstrated 

that a high level of friction was 

maintained on PFC overlays for the 

entire runway length. 

Today, most airports in the United 

States use these methods and materials. 

Consequently, the frequency of 

accidents and incidents caused by loss 

of directional control and inadequate 

stopping capability has been greatly 

reduced. However, the skid resistance of 

these surfaces deteriorates over time. 

The FAA provides guidance and 

procedures in Advisory Circular 150/ 

5320–12C, Measurement, Construction, 

and Maintenance of Skid Resistant 

Airport Pavement Surfaces. However, 

there is no FAA requirement for airports 

to regularly inspect and record runway 

friction levels or to ensure runways are 

maintained in a manner that provides 

adequate friction levels. Neither is there 

a requirement to perform tests using 

continuous friction measuring 

equipment (CFME) or to evaluate the 

drainage capabilities of runway surface 

grooving and transverse slopes. 

The FAA has determined that visual 

evaluations of pavement friction are not 

sufficient. CFME provides quantitative 

results that can be used to determine 

whether friction values meet acceptable 

standards. A list of approved CFME can 

be found in AC 150/5320–12C. While 

some U.S. airports use CFME, others 

may use less effective methods to 

monitor build-up of rubber deposits and 

deterioration of friction characteristics. 

Surface Movement Guidance Control 

System (SMGCS) 

A Surface Movement Guidance 

Control System (SMGCS) is a system of 

lighting, signs, and markings that allows 

an aircraft to operate to and from the 

runway in very low visibility in a 

controlled and safe manner. This system 

provides guidance to and control of 

aircraft, ground vehicles, and personnel 

on the movement area of an airport. 

Guidance relates to facilities, 

information, and advice necessary for 

pilots of aircraft or drivers of ground 

vehicles to navigate the movement area 

and to keep aircraft or vehicles on the 

surfaces or within the areas intended for 

their use. Control means the measures 

necessary to prevent collisions and 

ensure traffic flows smoothly and freely. 

The FAA guidance on SMGCS is 

available in AC 120–57A, Surface 

Movement Guidance and Control 

System. Low-visibility operations exist 

when Runway Visual Range (RVR) 

reports on any active runway drop 

below 1,200 feet RVR. AC 120–57A 

provides recommendations for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

5512 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

improved safety procedures to 

accommodate low-visibility ground 

operations. Some airports voluntarily 

adopted AC 120–57A SMGCS practices. 

Some U.S. airports were approved to 

conduct low-visibility operations, but 

have not adopted all of the AC 120–57A 

SMGCS practices. Moreover, no FAA 

requirement ensures airports implement 

these recommendations (including 

optimum ground equipment, lighting, 

and signage) where air carriers conduct 

low-visibility operations. 

The potential significance of a ground 

movement error by a vehicle or aircraft 

during low-visibility operations is an 

increasing concern as more airline 

operations and multiple runway 

configurations are planned for the 

National Airspace System (NAS). 

Additionally, technology advances such 

as heads-up displays (HUD) and 

enhanced flight vision systems (EFV) 

increase low-visibility operating 

capability. The FAA and ICAO consider 

the recommended low-visibility 

practices in AC 120–57A, and specific 

enhanced ground equipment and 

guidance, necessary to ensure safety 

during low-visibility ground movement 

operations. Additionally, the FAA now 

requires Surface Movement Guidance 

and Control System (SMGCS) for 

commissioning new runways under the 

FAA’s Operations Evolution Plan (OEP). 

General Discussion of the Proposal 

The FAA proposes to amend 

§ 139.303 to require periodic training for 

all personnel authorized to access the 

non-movement area. The proposal also 

would add the definition of ‘‘nonmovement area’’ to § 139.5. Second, the 

proposal would amend § 139.305 to 

require a certificate holder to evaluate 

the surface characteristics of runways. 

Third, the proposal would require a 

certificate holder that allows operations 

below 1,200 feet RVR to implement a 

SMGCS plan in its airport certification 

manual (ACM). Fourth, the FAA 

proposes to amend § 139.1 to clarify the 

applicability of this part based on only 

the passenger seats in an aircraft used 

for passenger-carrying operations. 

Finally, the FAA proposes a new 

§ 139.115 that would prohibit 

fraudulent or intentionally false 

statements on an application for a 

certificate or other record required to be 

kept. 

Non-Movement Area Safety Training 

The FAA has concluded nonmovement area safety can be improved 

with increased training. Airport workers 

must be knowledgeable and aware of the 

various activities that take place in the 

non-movement area. This knowledge 

and awareness reduces confusion and 

carelessness by individuals accessing 

the non-movement area. Accordingly, 

the FAA proposes to require training for 

all persons authorized to access the nonmovement area. This training would 

complement the existing training for 

persons accessing the movement and 

safety areas, and could be combined 

with the training for persons accessing 

both the movement and non-movement 

areas. The FAA proposes the following 

exceptions for this training requirement: 

• Airman exercising the privileges of 

an applicable airman certificate; 

• Persons escorted by a trained 

individual; and 

• Other persons identified in the 

certificate holder’s ACM. 

A person would complete this 

training prior to accessing the nonmovement area, and at least yearly 

thereafter. The FAA intends to make 

this requirement effective one year after 

publication of the final rule to allow 

certificate holders time to develop a 

training program and complete training 

for all personnel accessing the nonmovement area. After the effective date 

of this proposal, if adopted, all persons 

would complete the training prior to 

accessing the non-movement area, 

unless escorted by a trained individual. 

The certificate holder would provide 

recurrent training as often as necessary 

to enable the person to maintain a 

satisfactory level of proficiency. 

Appropriate schedules for recurrent 

training may vary widely among 

certificate holders and individuals 

because of the specific needs of each 

certificate holder and individual. 

However, this recurrent training would 

occur at least yearly. Certificate holders 

may consider requiring recurrent 

training when a vehicle operator renews 

an expired airport identification badge 

or when a tenant renews a lease 

agreement. 

All training curricula would include, 

at a minimum, airport familiarization 

with airport markings, signs, and 

lighting, procedures for operating in the 

non-movement area, and duties required 

by the ACM or regulations. Although 

AC 150/5210–20 provides detailed 

guidance on developing training 

curricula, a certificate holder could 

determine its optimal method for 

completing this training. In addition to 

providing training on these minimum 

components, the FAA recommends onthe-job training for personnel prior to 

unescorted access to the airside of the 

airport. 

The curricula would address 

procedures for access to, and operation 

in, ramp and apron areas. Inadvertent 

entry by vehicles onto movement and 

non-movement areas of an airport poses 

a danger to both the vehicle operator 

and aircraft attempting to land, take off, 

or maneuver on the airport. 

Methods for controlling access to the 

airside depend on the type and location 

of the airport. The training would 

discuss the methods for controlling 

access and how a person can ensure 

those methods are effective. The Airport 

Layout Plan is a useful tool for 

identifying access points and general 

layout of the airfield. 

The curricula also would include 

procedures for operating in the nonmovement area including wearing 

personal protective equipment and high 

visibility clothing, cautious driving and 

speed awareness, and backing up and 

spotting obstructions. The training 

would stress that aircraft always have 

the right-of-way over vehicles when 

maneuvering on non-movement areas. 

Other duties that a person might 

encounter and require training for 

include fire prevention, hazardous 

weather, foreign object damage (FOD) 

prevention, reporting accidents/ 

incidents, safety around propeller and 

jet engine intakes, approaching an 

arriving aircraft, safely positioning 

ground servicing equipment, and other 

safety topics workers may encounter 

specific to the airport. A certificate 

holder would retain records of this 

training for 24 months as required by 

existing § 139.301(b)(1). 

Additionally, the FAA proposes to 

clarify the training requirement for 

persons accessing the movement and 

safety areas by substituting all ‘‘persons’’ 

for all ‘‘personnel’’ in § 139.303(c). The 

FAA has interpreted personnel to be 

broader than airport employees, but this 

proposed clarification would avoid 

confusion in interpreting the rule. 

Runway Pavement Surface Evaluation 

In an effort to improve safety, the 

FAA proposes a requirement to evaluate 

the surface characteristics of runways. 

This proposed requirement adopts 

existing guidance specified in Advisory 

Circular 150–5320–12C, Measurement, 

Construction, and Maintenance of Skid 

Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces. 

Because runway friction 

characteristics change over time, 

periodic runway friction measurements 

are needed not only to identify 

unacceptable runway friction levels but 

also to identify trends in changing 

runway conditions. Airport operators 

need to locate and restore areas on the 

pavement surface where friction has 

deteriorated below acceptable levels for 

aircraft braking performance. 

The FAA proposes amending 

§ 139.305 to require airports to establish 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5513 

and implement a runway friction testing 

program for each runway used by jet 

aircraft. A certificate holder with jet 

aircraft traffic should schedule periodic 

friction evaluations of each runway that 

accommodates jet aircraft. Components 

of the program would include a testing 

frequency that takes into consideration 

the volume and type of traffic as well as 

friction readings from CFMEs operated 

by trained personnel. Corrective action 

would be required, as needed. The 

airport operator also should locate 

potential hydroplaning areas as well as 

measure the depth and width of a 

runway’s grooves to check for wear and 

damage. 

Airports would establish and 

implement a program for testing 

performance of grooves and transverse 

slopes. Components of the program 

would include, at a minimum, 

instructions and procedures for 

conducting visual inspection of runway 

surfaces, taking the runway surface 

material and volume of traffic into 

consideration. On randomly-selected 

trafficked portions of the runway, the 

airport operator would have to measure 

the width and depth of grooves, inspect 

transverse slopes for desired 

performance, and take corrective action 

if testing reveals deterioration below 

established levels. 

Surface Movement Guidance Control 

System (SMGCS) 

Each certificate holder with FAAapproved takeoff or landing operations 

below 1,200 feet RVR must provide 

appropriate low-visibility surface 

enhancements and ground movement 

procedures. The basis for the approval 

of low-visibility operations for each 

runway would be incorporated in the 

certificate holder’s SMGCS plan. The 

plan would identify the responsibilities 

of all parties involved in low-visibility 

operations (e.g., airport operator, ATC, 

airport rescue and fire fighting (ARFF), 

air carriers, pedestrians, and ground 

vehicle operators). The plan should 

identify how and when these 

responsibilities will be carried out (e.g., 

the plan may identify different 

requirements for operations between 

1,200 feet RVR and 600 feet RVR, and 

those operations below 600 feet RVR). 

Accordingly, the FAA proposes to 

amend § 139.203 to require the ACM 

contain a SMGCS plan for airports 

approved for operations below 1,200 

feet RVR. The specific responsibilities 

are addressed in the proposed 

amendments to § 139.303 (personnel/ 

training requirements), § 139.311 

(marking, signs, and lighting), § 139.327 

(self-inspection program), § 139.319 

(aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF): 

Operational requirements), and 

§ 139.329 (pedestrians and ground 

vehicles). 

A SMGCS plan would facilitate the 

safe movement of aircraft and vehicles 

on the airport by establishing more 

rigorous control procedures and 

requiring enhanced visual aids. 

Additionally, the ability to conduct low 

visibility operations allows a certificate 

holder to stay open during poor weather 

conditions, thus reducing flight delays 

and cancellations. 

Only certificate holders that conduct 

low-visibility operations would be 

required to develop and implement a 

SMGCS plan. These plans would vary 

among airports because of local 

conditions, and would be subject to 

FAA approval. 

Applicability of Part 139 

Currently, § 139.1(a)(1) states that an 

airport must be certificated under part 

139 to host scheduled passengercarrying operations of an air carrier 

operating aircraft designed for more 

than nine passenger seats, as 

determined by the aircraft type 

certificate issued by a competent civil 

aviation authority. 

The current wording has created 

confusion regarding operation of a 

particular aircraft type, a Cessna 208B 

Caravan, because it is certificated as a 

single-pilot aircraft, but has two pilot 

seats. In non-revenue service, the 

second pilot seat may be occupied by a 

passenger. However, in scheduled 

passenger-carrying operations the 

operating rule, § 135.113, prohibits 

passengers from occupying the second 

pilot seat, which means there are not 

more than nine passenger seats during 

those operations. 

This proposal would clarify that the 

applicability of part 139 is based only 

on passenger seats in passenger-carrying 

operations as determined by either the 

regulations under which the operation 

is conducted or the aircraft type 

certificate. 

Certification and Falsification 

To ensure the reliability of records 

maintained by a certificate holder and 

reviewed by the FAA, this proposal 

would prohibit intentionally false or 

fraudulent statements concerning an 

AOC. Specifically, the FAA proposes a 

new § 139.155 that prohibits the making 

of any fraudulent or intentionally false 

statement on an application for a 

certificate; the making of any fraudulent 

or intentionally false statement on any 

record or report required by the FAA; 

and the reproduction or alteration, for a 

fraudulent purpose, of any FAA 

certificate or approval. The FAA 

proposes to suspend or revoke an AOC 

for violation of any of these prohibitions 

by an owner, operator, or other person 

acting on behalf of the certificate holder. 

The FAA also proposes to suspend or 

revoke any other FAA certificate issued 

to the person committing the act. The 

requirement is similar to falsification 

prohibitions in 14 CFR parts 43, 61, 65, 

and 67. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposal contains an extension 

of a currently approved collection 

OMB–2120–0675 subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). The 

title, description, and number of 

respondents, frequency of the 

collection, and estimate of the annual 

total reporting and recordkeeping 

burden are shown below. 

Title: Safety Enhancements to 14 CFR 

part 139, Certification of Airports 

Summary: If adopted, § 139.303(g) 

will require training for all personnel 

authorized to access the non-movement 

area as designated in the Airport 

Certification Manual, regardless of their 

duties or duration of access. 

Affected Public: A total of 256,000 

people would need to have their 

training records added to the airport’s 

records. 

Frequency: Once a year. 

Estimated average burden per 

employee: 0.1 hour per employee. 

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 

256,000 × .05 = 12,800. 

Estimated Annual Burden Costs: 

12,800 × $15.00 = $192,000. 

The agency is soliciting comments 

to— 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information requirement is necessary for 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of collecting 

information on those who are to 

respond, including by using appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with the U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

5514 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Readers seeking greater detail should 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which is in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) 

is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States; and (6) 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. These analyses are summarized 

below. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

The estimated cost of this proposed 

rule is $32.3 million in present value 

terms. The estimated potential benefits 

of adding safety enhancements to part 

139 are $47.0 million in present value 

terms. 

Who is Potentially Affected by this 

Rule? 

Owners and operators of part 139 

airports 

Tenants and tenant employees at part 

139 airports 

Users of part 139 airports 

Assumptions: 

Discount rate—7% 

Period of analysis—11 years because 

this provides a time period 

sufficient to determine an accurate 

estimate of benefits and costs 

Value of a fatality avoided—$6.0 million 

Benefits of This Rule 

The benefits of this proposed rule 

consist of safety enhancements to part 

139. These enhancements include 

providing additional training for people 

with access to the non-movement areas 

at airports which should reduce the 

number and severity of non-movement 

area accidents; adding a regulatory 

requirement for Runway Surface 

Evaluation Benefits, which should 

ensure reliability of runway surfaces in 

wet weather; and the development and 

integration of approved SMGCS plans 

into an ACM, which should reduce the 

number of diversions in bad weather. 

Over the 11-year period of analysis, the 

potential present value benefits of the 

proposed rule would be $47.0 million. 

Costs of This Rule 

This proposed rule’s present value 

costs consist of $31.6 million for 

training and $0.7 million for the 

development and integration of 

approved SMGCS plans into airport 

ACMs. The total present value cost of 

this rule is about $32.3 million. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The proposed rule has two costs, a 

cost for training in the non-movement 

area and a cost for the development and 

inclusion of a SMGCS plan in the ACM. 

Training costs apply to all airports, 

regardless of size. For the training costs, 

the FAA estimates that approximately 

20% or 111 of the total 556 certificated 

airports are small entities. This is a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA believes that there would be 

a significant economic impact on these 

small entities. However, the FAA 

proposes to mitigate the costs of the rule 

to small entities through one or more of 

the following items: 

Æ The minimum training curricula 

required by the proposed rule consists 

of airport familiarization, procedures 

for operating in the non-movement 

area, and duties required by the ACM 

or regulations. The FAA would 

provide guidance through Advisory 

Circulars (ACs) and/or other 

publications and consultations. 

Æ The training materials can come from 

a number of sources, including the 

following: 

➢ AC No: 150/5210–21, Date: 9/23/ 

03, Subject: Announcement of 

Availability: Airport Safety Training 

Programs for Mechanics and Ramp 

Personnel This AC provides 

information on how to obtain two 

interactive CD–ROMs that inform 

mechanics and ramp personnel 

about important practices for 

preventing runway incursions, 

ramp safety practices, proper taxi 

procedures, and proper tug and tow 

practices. The CD–ROMs may be 

obtained free of charge from the 

FAA. The two CD–ROMS are: 

➢ Taxi 101—This training program 

covers: Weather; airport 

familiarization; runway and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5515 

taxiway signs; surface markings and 

lighting: aircraft preflight; flight 

procedures; and air traffic control 

procedures. 

➢ Tug & Tow 101—This training 

program covers personal safety; 

ramp operations and safety; aircraft 

and engine hazards; 

communications; push back; 

aircraft towing; airport signs, 

surface and markings; weather; and 

air traffic control procedures. 

➢ AC No.: 150/5210–20: Change 1: 

Date: March 31, 2008: Subject: 

Ground Vehicle Operations On 

Airports. This AC and its attached 

appendices is to provide guidance 

to airport operators in developing 

training programs for safe ground 

vehicle operations and pedestrian 

control on the airside of an airport. 

This includes both movement and 

non-movement areas, ramps, and 

aprons. This AC contains 

recommended operating 

procedures, a sample training 

curriculum (Appendix A), and a 

sample training manual (Appendix 

B). 

➢ The American Association of 

Airport Executives (AAAE)— 

provides many training materials at 

low costs to airports. 

➢ Private companies also sell many 

training materials. 

➢ Training materials can include 

printed media, computer media, or 

any other effective media. 

The Surface Movements Guidance 

and Control System (SMGCS) costs in 

this rule apply only to airports that have 

chosen to implement a SMCGS plan. 

The FAA estimates that there are 

currently 54 airports with approved 

SMCGS plans and 78 airports that are 

currently seeking to provide for low 

visibility operations but do not yet have 

a SMGCS plan. The costs of SMGCS 

plans may be significant. However, the 

cost of SMGCS plans has been and will 

be mitigated by AC guidance on how to 

prepare a plan with an example plan. 

AC No.: 150/5320–12C, Date: 8/25/ 

2004, Subject: Surface Movements 

Guidance and Control System contains 

information on how to prepare a 

SMGCS plan and an example of a 

typical SMGCS plan. It should be noted 

that this AC has a provision for the 

performance of a benefit-cost study 

before developing a detailed SMGCS 

plan. Therefore, any small entity 

developing a SMGCS plan would likely 

first determine that it would be costbeneficial. 

The actual SMGCS plan for a single 

runway need not be longer than 15 

pages. The FAA will visit each airport 

to oversee and help with the SMGCS 

plans. 

The FAA has considered alternatives 

to the proposed rule. For the training 

portion of the rule the FAA has 

considered doing nothing. However, 

this would not result in any improved 

safety in the ramp area. The FAA also 

considered a much more stringent 

curriculum for the ramp safety training. 

However, this would not allow for the 

differences between airports. 

Therefore, the FAA believes the 

proposed rule is the most effective to 

improve ramp safety. In the case of 

SMGCS, most airports already have an 

alternative available to them. They can 

decide whether or not they want 

SMCGS facilities. 

The FAA believes the proposed rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a large number of small 

entities. However the FAA believes that 

any adverse economic impacts that 

would result from the proposed rule 

could be substantially reduced by 

positive mitigations by the FAA. The 

FAA solicits comments regarding this 

determination. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it would have only 

a domestic impact and therefore would 

not create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed the proposal 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

Most airports subject to this proposal 

are owned, operated, or regulated by a 

local government body (such as a city or 

county government), which, in turn, is 

incorporated by or as part of a State. 

Some airports are operated directly by a 

State. This action would have low costs 

of compliance compared with the 

resources available to airports, and it 

would not alter the relationship 

between certificate holders and the FAA 

as established by law. 

Accordingly, the FAA has determined 

that this action would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, the 

FAA has determined that this 

rulemaking does not have federalism 

implications. The FAA will mail a copy 

of the NPRM to each State government 

specifically inviting comment. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

Chapter 3, paragraph 312d, and involves 

no extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

5516 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, please send one 

copy of written comments, or if you are 

filing comments electronically, please 

submit your comments only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments received, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments we receive on or before 

the closing date for comments. The 

agency will consider comments filed 

late if it is possible to do so without 

incurring expense or delay. This 

proposal may change in light of 

comments we receive. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when the 

agency is aware of proprietary 

information filed with a comment, it is 

not placed in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and noted in the docket 

that the agency received it. If the FAA 

receives a request to examine or copy 

this information, it is treated as any 

other request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The 

agency processes such a request under 

the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR 

part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by— 

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (http:// 

www.regulations.gov); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s web page at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket or notice number of 

this rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 139 

Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter I of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 139—CERTIFICATION OF 

AIRPORTS 

1. The authority citation for part 139 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44709, 44719 

2. Amend § 139.1 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 139.1 Applicability. 

(a) This part prescribes rules 

governing the certification and 

operation of airports in any State of the 

United States, the District of Columbia, 

or any territory or possession of the 

United States serving any— 

(1) Scheduled passenger-carrying 

operations of an air carrier operating 

aircraft configured for more than 9 

passenger seats, as determined by the 

regulations under which the operation 

is conducted or the aircraft type 

certificate issued by a competent civil 

aviation authority; and 

(2) Unscheduled passenger-carrying 

operations of an air carrier operating 

aircraft configured for at least 31 

passenger seats, as determined by the 

regulations under which the operation 

is conducted or the aircraft type 

certificate issued by a competent civil 

aviation authority. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 139.5 by adding the 

definition of ‘‘non-movement area’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 139.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Non-movement area means the area, 

other than that described as the 

movement area, used for the loading, 

unloading, parking, and movement of 

aircraft on the airside of the airport 

(including ramps, apron areas, and onairport fuel farms). 

* * * * * 

4. Add § 139.115 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 139.115 Falsification, reproduction, or 

alteration of applications, certificates, 

reports, or records. 

(a) No person shall make or cause to 

be made: 

(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally 

false statement on any application for a 

certificate or approval under this part; 

(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally 

false entry in any record or report that 

is required to be made, kept, or used to 

show compliance with any requirement 

under this part; 

(3) Any reproduction, for a fraudulent 

purpose, of any certificate or approval 

issued under this part. 

(4) Any alteration, for a fraudulent 

purpose, of any certificate or approval 

issued under this part. 

(b) The commission by any owner, 

operator, or other person acting on 

behalf of a certificate holder of an act 

prohibited under paragraph (a) of this 

section is a basis for suspending or 

revoking any certificate or approval 

issued under this part and held by that 

certificate holder and any other 

certificate issued under this title and 

held by the person committing the act. 

5. Amend § 139.203 by redesignating 

paragraph (b)(29) as (b)(30) and adding 

a new paragraph (b)(29) to read as 

follows: 

§ 139.203 Contents of Airport Certification 

Manual. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5517 

Manual elements 

Airport certificate class 

Class I Class II Class III Class IV 

*******

29. For airports approved for low visibility takeoff or landing operations 

below 1200 feet runway visual range, a Surface Movement Guidance 

Control System (SMGCS) plan .................................................................... X X X X 

*******

6. Amend § 139.303 by revising 

paragraph (c) introductory text, 

redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as (c)(6), 

and adding a new paragraph (c)(5) and 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 139.303 Personnel. 

* * * * * 

(c) Train all persons who access 

movement areas and safety areas and 

perform duties in compliance with the 

requirements of the Airport Certification 

Manual and the requirements of this 

part. This training must be completed 

prior to the initial performance of such 

duties and at least once every 12 

consecutive calendar months. The 

curriculum for initial and recurrent 

training must include at least the 

following areas: 

* * * * * 

(5) When required, duties and 

procedures for low visibility SMGCS 

operations identified in the SMGCS 

plan. 

* * * * * 

(g)(1) Train all persons who are 

authorized to access the non-movement 

area as designated in the Airport 

Certification Manual, regardless of their 

duties or duration of access. The 

certificate holder must ensure training is 

completed prior to a person’s access to 

the non-movement area and at least 

once every 12 consecutive calendar 

months thereafter. 

(2) The curriculum for initial and 

recurrent training must include at least 

the following areas: 

(i) Airport familiarization, including 

airport marking, signs, and lighting. 

(ii) Procedures for access to, and 

operation in, the non-movement area. 

(iii) Duties required under the Airport 

Certification Manual and the 

requirements of this part. 

(3) The training requirements in this 

paragraph (g) do not apply to airmen 

exercising the privileges of an 

applicable airman certificate, persons 

being escorted by a trained individual, 

and other persons identified in the 

FAA-approved Airport Certification 

Manual. 

7. Amend § 139.305 by redesignating 

the paragraph (c) as (e) and by adding 

new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 139.305 Paved areas. 

* * * * * 

(c) Each certificate holder must 

establish and implement a runway 

friction testing program. The program 

must include, at a minimum, 

instructions and procedures for: 

(1) Conducting friction testing on 

runways used by turbojet aircraft traffic. 

(2) Maintaining a friction testing 

frequency that takes into consideration 

the volume and type of turbojet aircraft 

traffic and the actual friction conditions 

of the runway pavement that is 

conducted at least yearly. 

(3) Conducting friction testing using 

calibrated continuous friction 

measuring equipment with a selfwetting system. 

(4) Ensuring that the friction testing is 

performed by individuals qualified to 

use the equipment. 

(5) Taking corrective action when 

testing reveals deterioration below 

acceptable levels as specified in the 

certificate holder’s Airport Certification 

Manual. 

(d) Each certificate holder must 

establish and implement a program for 

testing performance of grooves and 

transverse slopes. The program must 

include, at a minimum, instructions and 

procedures for: 

(1) Conducting visual inspection of 

runway surfaces on a frequency that 

takes into consideration runway surface 

materials, volume of runway traffic, and 

conditions of runway pavement. 

(2) On randomly-selected portions of 

the runway, measuring the width and 

depth of grooves. 

(3) On randomly-selected portions of 

the runway, measuring the transverse 

slopes. 

(4) Taking corrective action when 

testing reveals deterioration below 

acceptable levels, as specified in the 

certificate holder’s Airport Certification 

Manual. 

* * * * * 

8. Amend § 139.311 by adding 

paragraphs (a)(6) and (c)(6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 139.311 Marking, signs, and lighting. 

(a) * * * 

(6) SMGCS markings on low visibility 

taxi routes identified in the approved 

SMGCS plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(6) SMGCS lighting to support low 

visibility taxi operations identified in 

the approved SMGCS plan. 

* * * * * 

9. Amend § 139.319 by adding 

paragraph (i)(2)(xii) to read as follows: 

§ 139.319 Aircraft rescue and fire-fighting: 

Operational requirements. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(xii) Procedures for low visibility 

operations as identified in the approved 

SMGCS plan. 

* * * * * 

10. Amend § 139.327 by adding 

paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 139.327 Self-inspection program. 

(a) * * * 

(4) When required to support low 

visibility SMGCS operations in 

accordance with the approved SMGCS 

plan. 

* * * * * 

11. Amend § 139.329 by redesignating 

paragraphs (e) and (f) as (f) and (g), 

respectively, by adding a new paragraph 

(e), and by revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 139.329 Pedestrians and ground 

vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(e) Establish and implement 

procedures for the safe and orderly 

access to and operation in movement 

areas and safety areas by pedestrians 

and ground vehicles during low 

visibility conditions as identified in the 

approved SMGCS plan. 

(f) Ensure that each employee, tenant, 

or contractor is trained on procedures 

required under paragraphs (b) and (e) of 

this section, including consequences of 

noncompliance, prior to moving on foot, 

or operating a ground vehicle, in 

movement areas or safety areas; and 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

5518 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 

2011. 

Michael J. O’Donnell, 

Director of Airport Safety and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2164 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

19 CFR Part 351 

[Docket No. 101130598–1052–02] 

RIN 0625–AA87 

Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation 

of the Weighted Average Dumping 

Margin and Assessment Rate in 

Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed 

modification; extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On December 28, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a proposed rule 

and proposed modification in the 

Federal Register requesting comments 

regarding the calculation of the 

weighted average dumping margin and 

antidumping duty assessment rate in 

certain antidumping duty proceedings. 

The Department has decided to extend 

the comment period, making the new 

deadline for submission of public 

comment February 18, 2011. 

DATES: To be assured of consideration, 

written comments must be received no 

later than February 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: All comments must be 

submitted through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. ITA– 

2010–0011, unless the commenter does 

not have access to the Internet. 

Commenters that do not have access to 

the Internet may submit the original and 

two copies of each set of comments by 

mail or hand delivery/courier to Ronald 

K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

Room 1870, Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. The 

comments should also be identified by 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

0625–AA87. 

The Department will consider all 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period. The Department 

will not accept comments accompanied 

by a request that part or all of the 

material be treated confidentially 

because of its business proprietary 

nature or for any other reason. All 

comments responding to this proposed 

rule and proposed modification will be 

a matter of public record and will be 

available for inspection at Import 

Administration’s Central Records Unit 

(Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover 

Building) and to the Department’s Web 

site at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. 

Any questions concerning file 

formatting, document conversion, 

access on the Internet, or other 

electronic filing issues should be 

addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import 

Administration Webmaster, at (202)– 

482–0866, e-mail address: webmastersupport@ita.doc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Quentin M. Baird, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202)–482–0834. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 28, 2010, the Department 

published a proposed rule and proposed 

modification in the Federal Register 

requesting comments regarding the 

calculation of the weighted average 

dumping margin and antidumping duty 

assessment rate in certain antidumping 

duty proceedings (75 FR 81533). That 

proposed rule and proposed 

modification indicated that public 

comments are due on January 27, 2011. 

In response to requests to extend this 

deadline, and to ensure parties have the 

opportunity to prepare thorough and 

comprehensive comments, the 

Department is extending the deadline 

for submitting comments by twenty-two 

days, until February 18, 2011. The 

Department will consider all comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period. Rebuttal comments 

received after the end of the comment 

period will be considered, if possible, 

but their consideration cannot be 

assured. 

Dated: January 21, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1946 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 200 

[Docket No. FR 5395–P–01] 

RIN 2502–AI92 

Federal Housing Administration (FHA): 

Refinancing an Existing Cooperative 

Under Section 207 Pursuant to Section 

223(f) of the National Housing Act 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 

Commissioner, HUD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: HUD proposes to revise its 

regulations governing the eligibility for 

FHA insurance of mortgages used for 

the purchase or refinancing of existing 

multifamily housing projects. Although 

the statutory language authorizing such 

insurance does not distinguish between 

rental or cooperative multifamily 

projects, HUD’s current regulations limit 

FHA insurance to existing rental 

projects. Given the current crisis in the 

capital markets and the significant 

downturn in the multifamily market, the 

Department has determined that this is 

an appropriate time to reconsider this 

regulatory imposed limitation with 

respect to the mortgage insurance for the 

refinancing of cooperative projects. As 

mortgage lenders strive to increase 

capital reserves and tighten 

underwriting standards, the availability 

of financing for multifamily housing has 

been reduced. FHA mortgage insurance 

could significantly improve the 

availability of funds and permit more 

favorable interest rates than would 

otherwise be likely. Accordingly, this 

proposed rule would revise HUD’s 

regulations to enable existing 

multifamily cooperative project owners 

to obtain FHA insurance for the 

refinancing of existing indebtedness. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: April 4, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposed rule to the Regulations 

Division, Office of General Counsel, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street, SW., 

Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410– 

0500. Communications must refer to the 

above docket number and title. There 

are two methods for submitting public 

comments. All submissions must refer 

to the above docket number and title. 

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS